Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know about that - what weapon is safer, more powerful, and faster than a handgun that you can relate to the horse / automotive vehicle analogy?

Anyway, I've often wondered if someday a huge bloc of voters would actually repeal the 2nd amendment. Madison seemed to think that such rights were necessary to the security of a free state. And yet other states seem to get by in the security department without giving their citizens that right.

Just offhand, I would say the modern day criminal and civil justice system would = automobile where gun = horse. For the most part, we don't need guns to settle our disputes anymore. We no longer duel, in part, because we can get satisfaction from a relatively efficient civil court system, and we don't have to worry about stray bullets hitting someone who isn't party to our dispute.

The Founding Fathers seemed to believe that arms held by private citizens were necessary to protect the citizens from their government, should government get out of control. In that sense, they were part of the security of the state. It also helps if someone should invade, you've got lots of weapons within easy reach lying about, and a citizenry that knows how to use them. But realistically, the USA is too geographically isolated and militarily powerful for either of those reasons to make much sense anymore. Neither Canada nor Mexico have the power or will to invade us, and unless private citizens gain the capability to own and operate strategic bombers, tanks, and atom bombs, they're not going to be much of a detriment to our government should it decide to go all totalitarian on us. Indeed, an individual right to bear arms (if those are your justifying reasons) is just as anachronistic as a right to travel the road by horse.